Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Big League Economics

The Trump Recovery Is Real News

Published

on

From 2010 to the first three quarters of 2016, Obama’s economic growth averaged 2.1%. Trump has already hit 3% in March and every indication is that the economy is just starting to roar. Indeed, Trump’s first quarter would beat the average from 1982 to 2009, wherein real GDP averaged 2.8%. Under Obama, labor force participation shrank to its lowest level in decades, to 62.8%. That number has already recovered under Trump. Moreover, in three consecutive reports, the United States has set records for the number of Americans employed at over 153 million. Obama’s supporters liked to claim there was job growth in his administration, but separating out government jobs from real, productive private sector jobs is a different matter. What is most interesting is that under Trump, manufacturing job growth has exceeded government job growth for the first time in decades.

Under Trump, the “official” unemployment rate that Obama touted for his tenure fell to a healthy 4.4%, a 10 year low, accompanied by rapid business expansion. The U6 number—which the fake news media has only started again to report on (which includes those who have stopped looking for work)—still exceeds 8, but many observers thought it was in the mid-teens in Obama’s weakest years. Trump’s U-6 number is the lowest since August 2001.

What is more telling than raw statistics is the deafening drumbeat of news stories about companies expanding or opening new facilities. Consider these:

*Austrailian CEO Anthony Pratt announced he would invest $2 billion in American manufacturing because he has “confidence in Trump”

Trending: Maxine Waters Wants Trump Supporters To Stop Confronting Her

*McCain Foods (ID) announced it would invest $200 million in a facility with 180 direct and 650 indirect jobs.

*Atwood Marine (MI) announced plans to invest $2 million, creating 80 new jobs.

*Nokien Tyres (TN) to open a $360 million facility, creating 400 full-time jobs.

*Mohawk Co. (AL) is investing $70 million in a fiber plant, creating 380 new jobs.

*Natural Foods (SC) creating 180 new jobs.

*Infosys, a target of Trump’s H1B Visa crackdown, announced it would hire 10,000 Americans.

*Salesforce CEO Mark Beihoff said his company would add a staggering five million apprenticeships in quest of a $400 billion sales force.

*BAE (PA) is expanding its York plant (500 jobs).

*Allegion Americas (IN) is creating 100 new jobs averaging $83,000 a year.

Oh, all of the above? These are just some of the May 2017 announcements. Other writers have already commented on the “feelings” surveys, such as the Washington Post/ABC poll that said that the number of people who think the economy is improving is the highest since 2002, or the Gallup Satisfaction index, which reached its highest level in over two years, or the National Association of Manufacturing survey that found that 93.3% of manufacturers are positive about their company’s outlook for the year, an all time high. The Conference Board’s February survey hit 125.6, the highest level in 17 years.

Then there are the two elephants in the room, the repeal of Obamacare and the new tax plan being discussed. While the health care bill will face challenges in the Senate, already word of the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax savings that the House bill contained are filtering out.

The Employer Mandate alone amounts to a $270 billion tax cut, while the Chronic Care Tax totals $126 billion. Obama’s prescription drug tax, abolished under the health care bill, would cut taxes by $28 billion, and the health insurance tax that is removed will save Americans another $145 billion. The 3.8% surtax on investment income amounts to a $172 billion tax cut. And these are tall contained just in the American Health Care Act—not the forthcoming Trump tax cut plans.

It’s worth noting that liberals cannot debate the taxes imposed by Obamacare, so they have shifted to a deceptive argument portraying Obamacare as reducing the number of bankruptcies. Time.com concocted an article claiming that Obamacare had “slashed” personal bankruptcies by 50%—of course, without any direct proof. But in fact, we have an excellent test case for whether Obamacare could possibly have done this in the form of Romneycare in Massachusetts. A writer named “DoodleBob” produced an analysis of bankruptcies in Massachusetts that showed that after Romneycare bankruptcies there fell faster than the national average. If anything, then, Obamacare didn’t perform as well as Massachusetts. In fact, according to the American Journal of Medicine in its own study, “Massachusetts’ health reform has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies.”

    The Trump economy, already outpacing Obama’s, is only beginning to soar and is refocusing on production and investment—the keys, as George Gilder argued in the Reagan years, to genuine growth—not consumption. So there are some retailers facing hard times as we reorder the economy on lasting, solid economic principles rather than debt-fueled consumption. This is the best news of all, for it means that the hiring numbers we are seeing now are just the beginning.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Big League Economics

Derrick Wilburn Explains Why Democrats Are So OLD

Published

on

Derrick Wilburn of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives (RMBC) explains in a stirring new piece shared on Facebook why the Democratic Party leaders are so old, while the Republican Party — adherent to its own term-limit laws — provides fresh faces in committee leadership.

Wilburn writes:

Quick, name a nationally-prominent Republican who’s under 60 years of age. Those who pay even the least bit of attention to the political game can likely name Tim Scott (52), Marco Rubio (46), Mia Love, (48), Ted Cruz (46), Rand Paul (54), Trey Gowdy (51), Nikki Haley (46) among others.

In recent weeks as many as 7 Republicans who are current committee chairmen have announced their intentions to retire from Congress. Why? Many in the media are attempting to sell the narrative that its because they sense impending doom. Not true. Its’ because the Republican caucus term limits its chairmanships and these have reached the end of their terms.

A recent piece in TheHill.com spotlights a key difference between the way the Republican caucus & Democrat caucus in Washington D.C. operate, but a difference few in the USA are aware of: “The term-limit policy, put in place by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1994, was designed to keep the party from growing stale by regularly injecting new blood and fresh ideas into the mix.”

The GOP’s self-imposed rule is that legislators can not serve more than six years as the party’s top lawmaker on a committee. So once you’ve chaired a committee for six, you’re out and it someone else’s turn. And there’s no back-dooring it. Once you’re done, you’re done. You can’t return to committee member status for a year or two then run for Chair again. They can chair another committee, but not the same one again.

Democrats have no such rules and its at least a part of the reason there’s such a lack of youth in the Dem caucus leadership.

Apply the same question which opened this newsletter to today’s Democrat party leadership — *quick*, name a prominent Democrat, someone with presence on a national level — who’s under 60 years of age. Nancy Pelosi (78), Harry Reid (tho now retired most can name him, 80), Diane Feinstein (84), Chuck Schumer (68), Maxine Waters (80), Elizabeth Warren (70), Bernie Sanders (76 – tho technically an Independent not a Democrat) & the list goes on. All nationally prominent, all 70, 75, 80+ years of age.

Where’s the youth? Blame, at least in part, a lack of (self-imposed) term limits.

Democrats pay their dues early in their careers by carrying the water (i.e. providing necessary votes) and one day ascend to the desired position of Committee Chair, then stay there, …forever.

So what happens often times is younger Democrats win local elections, get to D.C., look up and realize that these old farts aren’t going anyplace! The old guard is from districts in which they can’t be un-elected; they’ve been their for 25 years; been chair for 14; are currently 72 years old meaning they’ll be Committee Chair for at least another 10 or 15 until they retire (if they ever do.) So the young bucks realize, “I’m frozen out.”

For example: Rep. John Conyers, who was forced to (finally) resign in December amid the #MeToo scandal, was born in 1929. Conyers helped draft the presidential articles of impeachment — against Richard Nixon! Conyers first won a seat on the Judiciary Committee in 1965. He first became Chair of the House Oversight Committee in 1989.

Imagine you’re a young lawyer, say 46 years old, a Democrat who just won an election and your dream has been to get to D.C. one day and chair a committee that’s chaired (when Dems are in power) by 70 y/o Elizabeth Warren. You know good & darn well that you’ve no hope of that chairmanship for another 10 or 15 years! What’s that do for your hopes for your future?

You’ve heard of, seen and know Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Tim Scott, and they’re nationally prominent because they get a shot at the top much earlier in their careers and that, at least in part, summarizes why pretty much the only Democrats you see on the nightly news speaking from a podium into a microphone at press conferences are old farts. Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer. That’s just about it.

The situation caused the National Review to write a major piece which it titled “Old-Guard Democrats Refuse to Leave the Stage” sub-title “They’re keeping new leaders from emerging.”

Are term limits a good thing? That debate rages on. But the Capital Hill Republican party took the step of self-imposing them 25 years ago and it cannot be argued that the step has not created some very noticeable separation and differences between the parties.

-A Derrick Wilburn original

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend